Quantcast

Explaining Religious Psychosis

Andyman_1970

Andyman_1970

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2003
3,105
5
The Natural State
eric strt6 said:
for reading while drinking your morning coffee

The myth of the Christian conservative

http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2014/01/28/the-myth-of-the-christian-conservative/
Click to expand...
I'm down with the concept of the philosophical disconnect between what a modern “conservative Christian” and the teachings of Jesus.

I found the author made a bit of a “jump” however with the usage of psychotropic’s by figures in the Bible (he even mentioned the author of the work he cites is of indeterminate credentials). Is that not the same as conservatives making a “jump” without all the facts, context, etc to make the Text say what they want to support their agenda? If a conservative of “indeterminate credentials” made some controversial statement that ran counter to a more liberal idea, would they not get skewered for said lack of credentials?

I tend to be completely onboard with works that present good arguments that call into question the whole modern American conservative Christian concept. But when these works sink to the rhetoric that their opposing counterparts enjoy throwing around, for me that pretty much discredits the work. Rhetoric for me says you’re too emotionally wound up in the issue (on either side) to make a clear objective argument without an underlying agenda.

Anyway………….
 
eric strt6

eric strt6

Resident Curmudgeon
Sep 8, 2001
23,322
13,613
directly above the center of the earth


The Old Testament. It's been kinda important to much of human civilization going back a fair stretch. It's also a sham! Your cherished psalms and stories of ritualistic filicide are no longer any match for Israelis with radiocarbon dating equipment, sheeple!

Via Fox News (and hey, if they can admit it):

Archaeologists from Israel's top university have used radiocarbon dating to pinpoint the arrival of domestic camels in the Middle East — and they say the science directly contradicts the Bible's version of events.

Camels are mentioned as pack animals in the biblical stories of Abraham, Joseph and Jacob, Old Testament stories that historians peg to between 2000 and 1500 BC. But Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen of Tel Aviv University's Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures say camels weren't domesticated in Israel until centuries later, more like 900 BC.

"In addition to challenging the Bible's historicity, this anachronism is direct proof that the text was compiled well after the events it describes," reads a press release announcing the research.
Lay translation: The Old Testament was written down after men had camels as regular pack animals in the Middle East—centuries after the events in it are thought to have happened. Not just the creation and the Adam-Eve-serpent-Fall-of-Man thing: The whole story of the Israelites and whatnot.

http://gawker.com/the-whole-bible-thing-is-b-s-because-of-camel-bones-s-1517741877
 
$tinkle

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
syadasti said:
That opinion piece is about as sound and rational as is Ken Ham. You'll have to do much better than that.
Click to expand...
which parts, exactly, are unsound & irrational?

[yes, i agree ken ham struggles even more with reason than he does w/ his recently pathetic effort to gain the respect & friendship of mr nye]
 
syadasti

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
$tinkle said:
which parts, exactly, are unsound & irrational?
Click to expand...
Science is not another faith just as creationism has no place in a science classroom.

If he wants to make a case for his argument there's no reason to be centric around the current flavor of the weak Western monotheism either.

Also why didn't you just read the comments from where you picked up that article:

The universe is what it is no matter what you believe.

So arguing that people *believe* God exists, therefore he does, is no more convincing than arguing that people don’t believe in God, therefore he can’t exist.
Click to expand...
“G.G.: So, what are the further grounds for believing in God, the reasons that make atheism unjustified?

A.P.: The most important ground of belief is probably not philosophical argument but religious experience. Many people of very many different cultures have thought themselves in experiential touch with a being worthy of worship.”

“THE most important”? And *this* supposedly makes atheism irrational?

Many people of very many different cultures have thought themselves in experiential touch with long-dead ancestors too. Ergo, not believing in ghosts is irrational.

And etc., etc., etc.

Funniest thing about all this that you always see though and is never noted is that when they think they have an argument stemming from reason or evidence or (as here, allegedly), logic, they of course do so.

But then, when in some unanswerable box, suddenly … poof … all those things are said not to count because it’s all just a matter of faith then.

If you wanna believe because of some innate feeling or “experiential touch” then believe. Fine. Lots more persuasive to me than first trying to argue reason or evidence or logic and then, when the going gets tough, essentially saying none of it matters anyway which of course includes their *own* reason or evidence or logic that they were just brandishing.

You can’t have it both ways.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
$tinkle

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
syadasti said:
Science is not another faith just as creationism has no place in science classroom.
Click to expand...
in my re-re-reading, i do not see where this argument is made. i see where you make the thin-skinned & pre-emptive/defensive presumption this is either commentors' argument, despite their statements & thorough explanations, replete w/ what has been widely regarded as their forebearers' best [counter-]arguments (given the provided real estate)

in fact, this is the closest statement made to projecting a 'thesis':
a major support for atheism [is] the very fact that we no longer need God to explain the world
Click to expand...
syadasti said:
If he wants to make a case for his argument there's no reason to be centric around the current flavor of the weak Western monotheism either.
Click to expand...
i appreciate this comment, as it draws out the arbitrariness of either of their positions; more on that at the end
syadasti said:
Also why didn't you just read the comments from where you picked up that article:
Click to expand...
you are demonstrating 'faith' i did not; there's no supporting evidence. are you not troubled by that wanton disregard for your cause?

i'm so thankful you quoted this:
If you wanna believe because of some innate feeling or “experiential touch” then believe. Fine. Lots more persuasive to me than first trying to argue reason or evidence or logic and then, when the going gets tough, essentially saying none of it matters anyway which of course includes their *own* reason or evidence or logic that they were just brandishing.

You can’t have it both ways.
Click to expand...
for it is true!

other thoughts:
we live in a material world, yes? if so, then how do you categorize the conscience (which includes both knowledge, as well as belief, at times based upon knowledge)? a simple neural map that can be explained or conveyed through a specific course of study, including an agreed upon anthropogenic parlance (not unlike taxonomy)? but it cannot be duplicated, nor confined, nor observed, nor created, so how can it "exist" in a material world?

"suffering" and "evil" are both arbitrary, and only have weight due to appeals to narcissism & authority. without regard to degree, am i suffering when i have the cold, and also when i have terminal cancer? does it make the idea of an all-mighty more or less appealing based upon the outcome/recovery? narcissistic indeed! same for evil: if i cut someone off in traffic, or if i physically torture a large number of our society who are widely deemed to be the most vulnerable just for sport, isn't society's response arbitrary? (note: i did not write 'random'). so in this regard, 'man is the measure' applies absolutely

references to either evil/suffering should be tossed aside when making arguments for either cause, *especially* to include projecting the other side's position.

finally: neither atheism nor theism is rational, arguable, or even sensible. the only safe terra firma is the craven middle ground of agnosticism
 
syadasti

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
$tinkle said:
in my re-re-reading, i do not see where this argument is made. i see where you make the thin-skinned & pre-emptive/defensive presumption this is either commentors' argument, despite their statements & thorough explanations, replete w/ what has been widely regarded as their forebearers' best [counter-]arguments (given the provided real estate)
Click to expand...
This moon example is a misunderstanding of how science works and a faulty argument:

A.P.: Some atheists seem to think that a sufficient reason for atheism is the fact (as they say) that we no longer need God to explain natural phenomena — lightning and thunder for example. We now have science.

As a justification of atheism, this is pretty lame. We no longer need the moon to explain or account for lunacy; it hardly follows that belief in the nonexistence of the moon (a-moonism?) is justified. A-moonism on this ground would be sensible only if the sole ground for belief in the existence of the moon was its explanatory power with respect to lunacy. (And even so, the justified attitude would be agnosticism with respect to the moon, not a-moonism.) The same thing goes with belief in God: Atheism on this sort of basis would be justified only if the explanatory power of theism were the only reason for belief in God. And even then, agnosticism would be the justified attitude, not atheism.
Click to expand...
Another BS answer based on lack of understanding and his false premises. His probabilities math makes no sense too, it's completely arbitrary - no basis:

AP: Right. In fact, given materialism and evolution, it follows that our belief-producing faculties are not reliable.

Here’s why. If a belief is as likely to be false as to be true, we’d have to say the probability that any particular belief is true is about 50 percent. Now suppose we had a total of 100 independent beliefs (of course, we have many more). Remember that the probability that all of a group of beliefs are true is the multiplication of all their individual probabilities. Even if we set a fairly low bar for reliability — say, that at least two-thirds (67 percent) of our beliefs are true — our overall reliability, given materialism and evolution, is exceedingly low: something like .0004. So if you accept both materialism and evolution, you have good reason to believe that your belief-producing faculties are not reliable.

But to believe that is to fall into a total skepticism, which leaves you with no reason to accept any of your beliefs (including your beliefs in materialism and evolution!). The only sensible course is to give up the claim leading to this conclusion: that both materialism and evolution are true. Maybe you can hold one or the other, but not both.

So if you’re an atheist simply because you accept materialism, maintaining your atheism means you have to give up your belief that evolution is true. Another way to put it: The belief that both materialism and evolution are true is self-refuting. It shoots itself in the foot. Therefore it can’t rationally be held.
Click to expand...
 
johnbryanpeters

johnbryanpeters

Hero
Sep 27, 2001
36,103
16,551
Making moss sad in New Haven, Vermont
I proudly claim the "craven middle ground of agnosticism". When I was a kid I purported to be an atheist, arrogant/ignorant &c, &c. Upon reflection it became evident that I can't possibly know, so agnosticism seems the only tenable ground.

I do believe that there's right and there's wrong, and that there's a full spectrum between those extremes. Hence, morality's always a struggle and ambiguity exists. right in this dimension's wrong in that and the art of living consists of balancing gracefully in the turbulence. One-dimensional black and white views blind.

We now return you to your regular programming.
 
Kevin

Kevin

Turbo Monkey
Sep 6, 2004
4,540
1,007
In Holland sticking my finger in a dike...
Oh Carolina...

South Carolina Dept. of Education Decides Kids Don’t Need To Learn About Evolution
by Liam O'Connor posted on February 13, 2014 10:13PM GMT
The state education committee in South Carolina has agreed a series of new science standards for students, but has omitted a crucial clause that refers to evolution through natural selection:
“Conceptual Understanding: Biological evolution occurs primarily when natural selection acts on the genetic variation in a population and changes the distribution of traits in that population over multiple generations.” P. 78 of the South Carolina Academic Standards and Performance Indicators for Science.”
Senator Mike Fair, a Republican who had advocated dropping the reference, said he believed it was right to teach children other “theories”:

“Natural selection is a direct reference to Darwinism. And the implication of Darwinism is that it is start to finish. To teach that natural selection is the answer to origins is wrong. I don’t have a problem with teaching theories. I don’t think it should be taught as fact.”
Click to expand...
 
Kevin

Kevin

Turbo Monkey
Sep 6, 2004
4,540
1,007
In Holland sticking my finger in a dike...
$tinkle said:
finally: neither atheism nor theism is rational, arguable, or even sensible. the only safe terra firma is the craven middle ground of agnosticism
Click to expand...
Every atheist with half a brain will admit that you are right. There is no way to be one hundred procent sure there is no god.
Just like there is no way to be 100% sure there is no flying spagetti monster.
Yet most of us would agree there probably isnt.

What we all can and should agree on, is that basing our lives and beliefs on scripture, is not only wrong but also dangerous to us a species.
It has held humanity back for thousands of years and it is time we get rid of it.
 
Jm_

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
18,998
9,659
AK
Kevin said:
Every atheist with half a brain will admit that you are right. There is no way to be one hundred procent sure there is no god.
Click to expand...
By any reasonable measure that we use for any other supernatural being or occurrence, I am 100% sure there is no god. If we were unable to make these kinds of decisions, we'd be unable to function in real life, as we'd be too afraid of being scooped up by a dragon as soon as we stepped outside. Can you "prove" 100% that a dragon isn't there waiting for me? No, but you have to assume it is not based on there being no evidence for it, otherwise you will be unable to function.
 
Kevin

Kevin

Turbo Monkey
Sep 6, 2004
4,540
1,007
In Holland sticking my finger in a dike...
Jm_ said:
By any reasonable measure that we use for any other supernatural being or occurrence, I am 100% sure there is no god. If we were unable to make these kinds of decisions, we'd be unable to function in real life, as we'd be too afraid of being scooped up by a dragon as soon as we stepped outside. Can you "prove" 100% that a dragon isn't there waiting for me? No, but you have to assume it is not based on there being no evidence for it, otherwise you will be unable to function.
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges.
The existence of dragons would have been likely to have at least shown up in our fossil record.
And we have of yet no scientific method to prove the existence of a god like being.
We therefore have a stronger scientific case against the existence of dragons then against the existence of god.
Its not as black and white as you made it out to be, and we can function just fine even tho here might be a 0.00001 % chance of a dragon scooping us up from the ground without us having to base our lives around it. To claim we can not is just silly.

To make myself clear, i think the chances for the existance of a personal god are slim to say the least. I have never had the need for such a hypothesis, and i see very little evidence in its favor.
This doesnt mean I can prove his non existance, just as I can probably never prove the non existence of a flying spagetti monster or any other deity.

Anyone who claims otherwise, either in its favor or against it, does not fully appreciate all the aspects of the matter.
 
Last edited:
mattmatt86

mattmatt86

Turbo Monkey
Feb 9, 2005
5,347
10
Bleedmore, Murderland
Last edited:
Jm_

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
18,998
9,659
AK
I have to pay like $5 in arizona taxes this year, maybe I can include a nice message with it "Not for discriminating against the gays" on my check?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom